Double standard on transgender? May 17, 2007

It’s always astounded me how willing some in the gay activist community are to celebrate someone surgically altering their body to “become” who they perceive to be internally. Yet when I determine I want to reorient my sexual orientation, which does not require drastic surgery or body altering drugs, according to those same activists, I am the one doing damage to myself and others by simply holding to a particular worldview that brings me contentment and sexual reorientation. The transgendered are applauded for radically altering their bodies while I am scolded for holding the belief that I would be happier living out who I truly am regardless of my past life as a gay identified man. It’s ok for someone to ignore what they were obviously born as but for people like me … we are told being “gay” is genetic and should be embraced because we have no other option.

People who use the “ex-gay” description for themselves (we don’t!) can also appeal to their rights. The post above reminds me of something I wrote questioning the links made between L, G, B and T. Do read it and respond!

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

if this man knows what transgender disorder is then he is definitely not doing a good job at showing this knowledge in this article. you can blame homosexuality on bad psychology but when you get a transgender disorder the actual physical make up of the individual is skewed towards the opposite sex. he is comparing oranges to apples (incidentally both “fruits!!”). yes, transgender affected individuals have a palpable physical disorder. that is a completely different ball game. you can’t debate with a transger affected person but you can with a homosexual cuz the latter concept is sort of abstract.

he is keen to change his orientation. fair enough nowadays you can change the color of your skin if you want. what i don’t understand is why does he care what the activists say? why does he not just change and be gay (happy) and content about it? a completely useless article.

It’s not mainstream within LGBT theorising/activism to consider homosexuality as related to “bad psychology”. They say that it’s as essential to identity as anything else, like skin colour or indeed gender.

So they decry anyone changing his “orientation” (their concept, not mine), as something against nature, against freedom of being who you want to be, even if it’s change that he wants.

But when someone says “I look male to any observer, but I consider myself female”, they affirm that person’s right to body-altering surgery.

What “palpable physical disorder” are you talking about? Is it so clear in every case?

does it have to be clear in every case? to whom? to you? or to the person involved?

think of nausea or migraine or some other condition where the effect of the symptom affect life without the presence of demonstrable sign. if it has an immediate and practical effect on your life it is as true palpable as it gets. of course you’re assuming the person involved is neither malingering nor crazy. so if you honestly feel trapped inside an opposite sex body and that seriously affects your mental wellbeing then you need all the help you can get.

and i’m not even lumping intersex with transgender like some do. that would be a completely different discussion.

and by the way, of course homosexuality is not bad psychology. the LGBT have no obligation to treat it as so. i say you can blame it on that because those ignorant of homosexuality tend to follow that path when they’re not fantasizing that homosexuals actually become this way on purpose. it’s their point of view that we can choose to tackle if we want. it is not entirely none sensical but that’s about as much as you can say of it.

You used the word “palpable”, hence why I asked whether it is so clear in every case. What I’m querying is your distinction between the case of “I’m homosexually orientated and don’t want to be” versus “I’m physically male and don’t want to be”.

I do make a strong distinction, but I wonder why the LGBT campaigners should, considering their usual assertion that orientations are inherent to human physical identity.

But here I’ve said “don’t want to be”. I do note, of course, that transgender people would normally not make it about want, but rather that “I AM female inside” (or vice versa). But again, I don’t see that the case of “I AM straight, or should be” is distinct enough for the double-standard to be justified.

palpable, as in the phrase “palpable difference” means noticeable or perceived in significant way and that explains why I rushed to remind u that the referrence point should not be you the observer but should be the person him or herself.

it is because LGBT activists assert that orientations are inherent that they object to the writer. if you’r homosexual then your natural orientation is to be so. you could still be happy with the idea of being a man. if you’re transgender then you have an orientation difficulty at a completely different level. it is to do with your physical form. yes, sexual orientation follows but that is a different category altogether.

[…] I place a lot of emphasis on proper terminology, as the issues are tricky enough without getting muddled up by loose words. I have critiqued the term “ex-gay” on several grounds, but I’ll add another: it’s used by homosexualists to push those ‘cranks’ out of their fold for daring to want something different for themselves other than homo-orthodoxy. Worse still, they are ‘extremists’ and anyone who offers them the support they seek is likewise a bigoted ‘homophobe’. This stance is rife with contradictions. […]

A Unique Perspective

Here we discuss the concept and emergence of "Gay Muslims", considering that homosexual activity is clearly forbidden in Islam. We kindly advise Muslims struggling with same-sex attraction, affirming that nobody is sinful for what they feel inside. As for those people who try to distort the religion, we refute them soundly with evidence.